Arnold et al v. Foremost Insurance Company et al., No. 1:2016cv01944 - Document 40 (N.D. Ohio 2017)

Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order Defendant Foremost Insurance Company Grand Rapids Michigan's Motion to Dismiss or Stay (ECF No. 33 ) is granted in part. The claims of Plaintiffs Sharon and Ronald Stone set forth in the Amended Class A ction Complaint (ECF No. 31 ) are dismissed with prejudice. The Court hereby directs Plaintiff David Arnold and Defendant to address by appraisal their disagreements in the calculation of the amounts owed for Arnold's insured loss. Further p roceedings in this action are stayed, subject to further order of the Court, upon written motion, and for good cause shown after the appraisal process has been completed. No claims of Plaintiff David Arnold or defenses shall be waived as a result of the stay. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 3/17/2017. (JLG)

Download PDF
Arnold et al v. Foremost Insurance Company et al. Doc. 40 PEARSON, J. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION DAVID ARNOLD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:16CV1944 JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER [Resolving ECF No. 33] Pending is Defendant Foremost Insurance Company Grand Rapids Michigan’s Motion to Dismiss or Stay (ECF No. 33) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6). The Court has been advised, having reviewed the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law. The Court has also considered the oral statements of counsel offered during the Telephonic Status Conference held on March 15, 2017. Defendant’s motion is granted in part. The claims of Plaintiffs Sharon and Ronald Stone set forth in the Amended Class Action Complaint (ECF No. 31) are dismissed with prejudice. The Court finds that the claims of Plaintiff David Arnold set forth in the Amended Class Action Complaint (ECF No. 31) present a dispute over the amount of loss to his rental property damaged in the June 30, 2015 fire. Therefore, the appraisal provisions in Plaintiff David Arnold’s insurance policy apply to the dispute between him and Defendant. See Policy (ECF No. 31-1) at PageID #: 281-82. The Court hereby directs Plaintiff David Arnold and Defendant to Dockets.Justia.com (1:16CV1944) address by appraisal their disagreements in the calculation of the amounts owed for Arnold’s insured loss. Further proceedings in the above-entitled action are stayed, subject to further order of the Court, upon written motion, and for good cause shown after the appraisal process has been completed. No claims of Plaintiff David Arnold or defenses shall be waived as a result of the stay. IT IS SO ORDERED. March 17, 2017 Date /s/ Benita Y. Pearson Benita Y. Pearson United States District Judge 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.